- List All


  • Web   The Point

Blogroll

+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory



« They don’t call him the little messiah for nothing | Main | Daily roundup »

September 30, 2008

Freedom’s Trial

Wilberforce Fellow Jennifer Roback Morse has an interesting piece about the Bradley Lashawn Fowler lawsuit against Zondervan, and First Amendment rights. 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c635553ef010534fb5a43970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Freedom’s Trial:

Comments

FriarThom

Dr Roback Morse said:

"It is far more compelling to believe that men are motivated to acts of violence against women by the pornography than that Christians are motivated to acts of violence against homosexuals by a few verses in the bible."

If that's the case, "it is far more compelling to believe that men are motivated to acts of violence against women by" the repeated use of Eve's temptation and her luring Adam to commit original sin. Plus, there is the biblical mandate for wives to submit to their husbands.

"Wives, submit to your husband as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
Eph 5:22-24

Let's hope that feminists who believe they are equal to men don't get a hold of this idea. They have a much stronger case.

Steve (SBK)

"If that's the case, "it is far more compelling to believe that men are motivated to acts of violence against women by" the repeated use of Eve's temptation and her luring Adam to commit original sin. Plus, there is the biblical mandate for wives to submit to their husbands."

Here's the logic above:
If it's the case that pornography, (a larger industry than all major sports and hollywood), which objectifies and dehumanizes women, which exists for that purpose, which is present in the lives of many who commit violence against women and is often cited as the motivation for violence, far outweighs the evidence or appearance of any violence motivated by a few verses in the Bible (the purpose of which, contrary to much popular opinion is not a book of rules about sex) then the even less often appearing or used or discussed topic (or example of violence) of Eve's influence on Adam is "far more compelling to believe" is the cause of violence against women - more compelling (citing all the mountains of evidence) than that of pornography. As well, the logic is that verses picked out of their context is a compelling argument. The context of Eph. 5:22-24 and every sermon I've heard preached follows the greater context of Eph. 5:21-33.
Eph.5:21: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
Eph.5:22-24: (see above)
and
Eph.5:25-33: "25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

Sounds like a pretty strong argument for the feminists. Men! Don't get a hold of this. Do you really want to love and give yourself up to your wife, as Christ did for his Church? Are you going to care for your wife as for your own body? (After all, no one hated his body - he feeds and cares for it. This is what is required you do for your wife if you get a hold of this idea!)

FriarThom, if you have a rib to pick with those who disagree with you, please: base your arguments on historical fact and context, not your wishful musings.

labrialumn

"There you go, again."

FriarThom

Steve (SBK),

We see. Ephesians 5 isn't a sociological root cause for woman's oppression. It's "God's Design", and that's the way uh-huh, uh-huh we men like it, uh-huh uh-huh.

FriarThom

Darn,

I commented too soon. Just learned about the conference titled:

“The Conflict between Federal Domestic Violence Policies and Traditional Family Values”

One speaker is a dear friend and neighbor to PFM.

"How Domestic Violence Policies Weaken Families and Harm Children
Stephen Baskerville, PhD – Patrick Henry College
Foundation"

see:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/doing-away-vawa

Chris Clukey

FriarThom--

1. Why is skepticism about VAWA assumed (by Right Wing Watch and presumably by you) to be the same as being unserious about domestic violence? After all, the ACLU has been fighting VAWA since it was written on due process and equal protection grounds. Do you think they're into wifebeating?

2. In Ephesians 5 women are instructed to submit to their husbands, but the husbands are instructed to love their wives the way Jesus loved the church. How exactly would a social contract that requires the man to be willing to die (in Jesus's case, quite horribly) for his wife and act like Jesus be responsible for a man punching his wife out?

3. In that same vein, what percentage of guys do you think are ruminating on the fall of man and Paul's letter to the Ephesians at the time they decide to beat up their wife or girlfriend? How many of them are regular church attendees?

4. As I asked elsewhere, why do you say "God says it, I believe it and that settles it" with Genesis 2 but not Ephesians 5?

Steve (SBK)

I meant to comment on this earlier, thanks Chris for bringing the thread up.

I'm not sure what your point is FriarThom (in your last post).

As you may know, forced action does not good people make.
Here's a quote from Os Guinness:
"The [American] framers' foundational triangle of assumptions expresses this link [between faith and freedom] perfectly: 'Freedom requires virtue. Virtue requires faith (of some sort). And faith requires freedom.'"

Could it be possible that virtue, not overt government control, leads to right action?

Without knowing the actual content of the talk, I can't comment further, nor do I know why you would mention it - as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with my points on husbandly, sacrificial love.

And Chris, as always, good comments.

FriarThom

Steve (SBK) says:

"I'm not sure what your point is FriarThom"

My first comment on this thread questioned Dr Morse's assertion that:

"It is far more compelling to believe that men are motivated to acts of violence against women by the pornography than that Christians are motivated to acts of violence against homosexuals by a few verses in the bible."

While agree with the words written above, I don't agree with the overall point because Dr. Morse, and many (all?) authors and "orthodox" commenters here would dispute the fact that one can be gay and Christian. The "orthodox" have also taken "a few verses" and turned them into a political movement. If Dr. Morse had written the above transparently, it would have ended with:

"than that [orthodox] Christians are motivated to acts of violence against homosexuals by [political organizations that motivate their followers to act out against GLBT people based on repeated misinterpretation of] a few verses in the bible."

The last comment was meant to question whether violence against women could also be caused by misinterpretations of a few verses of the Bible. The link exposes the fact that at least one orthodox Christian professor, Dr. Stephen Baskerville finds legal protections for battered women to be in conflict with the "traditional family". Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Steve (SBK)

FriarThom,

My first comment on this thread questioned your logic and biblical hermeneutics.

Your comment implied the bizarre idea that "Eve's temptation of Adam" motivating violence was as prolific and dangerous as pornography.

And you obviously ignored the context of the verses you were quoting.

You seemed to accept this and then found something you thought promoted mistreatment of battered women.

I understand that you will find any way to promote your understanding of homosexuality: Whether by misusing logic or scripture - the important thing for you is to make sure the orthodox commenters know there are some other ideas out there.

By placing "orthodox" in quotes, you reveal your ignorance of what it means. It is not the orthodox Christians who are disputing the weighted millenia of tradition and scholarship and understanding based on 'a few verses'. Orthodox believers are not wrong because they disagree with you. Orthodox believers are not unique in taking "a few verses" and turn them into a political movement (and this isn't always a bad thing). Everyone does. The gay political agenda doesn't even start with "a few verses". Their mental grid will not allow anything but applying their political motivation onto some verses, which they do (as you have demonstrated) with illogic and eisegesis.

Don't agree with orthodox Christianity. Fine. But homosexual lifestyles are not compatible with Christianity. Arguments in disagreement have no historical or biblical foundation. Fine.

But you won't see anyone here promoting violence against women or homosexuals. Misinterpretation of verses is usually the result of poor instruction or a weak mind (or both). This can not always be helped, especially when people with agendas pick and choose words free from context. But there will be, sadly, hatred and violence no matter what party is in power, or whether there is a consensus on religion or atheism, or whether everyone is highly educated in hopes of transforming society. Guess what? People sin. Only the power of God through Christ can make them new creations. Hypocrites and wolves in sheeps clothing will always be among us, the orthodox believers. Believe it or not, accept it or not.

From what I read though, to conclude, Dr. Baskerville thinks there are better solutions for battered women. I couldn't say what these are based on a brief outline, nor could you.

Not much makes me wonder when it comes from you FriarThom.

FriarThom

Gina,

Please explain to Steve (SBK) the difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing a person.

"Not much makes me wonder when it comes from you FriarThom."

"Don’t be selfish; don’t try to impress others. Be humble, thinking of others as better than yourselves. Don’t look out only for your own interests, but take an interest in others, too."

Steve (SBK)

"Please explain to Steve (SBK) the difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing a person.

"Not much makes me wonder when it comes from you FriarThom.""

That wasn't intended as criticism. That was a truthful reflection of how I experience your commentary. In general, I'm not surprised by the thrust of your posts. So?

Feel free to play the victimization card. Alternatively, engage in some kind of meaningful dialogue on the topic at hand.

The comments to this entry are closed.